While Canada was confederated in 1867, it would be another 115 years before it would become a totally sovereign nation in every aspect.
When Great Britain declared war on Germany during World War I, Canada automatically entered the war as Great Britain still controlled their foreign affairs.
The Statute of Westminster of 1931 gave the Canadian Parliament full authority over Canada’s domestic and foreign affairs, but Canada was not still completely sovereign, as Canada could not amend their Constitution without the consent of the British Parliament.
It was not until the Constitution Act of 1982 that transferred control of Canada’s Constitution solely to Canada that Canada truly became a fully sovereign and independent nation state.
First, a quick background as to the original purpose of the Establishment Clause, as it existed from the time of its ratification with the First Amendment until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, several States still had established churches, some as the official State church, some merely having a favored status, with many of these churches receiving official funding and support from the several States. The Establishment clause therefore had TWO purposes:
Prevent Congress from establishing an official church or religion for the United States that might contradict the established churches of the several States.
Prevent Congress from disestablishing a State Church or religion or interfering with a State’s funding or support of churches or religions.
Of course, by the late 1820’s, all State’s had disestablished their State churches, so reason 2 went under the board but reason 1 remained valid.
Along comes the 14th Amendment in 1868 and after that comes the doctrine of incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the State. In time, the Establishment Clause as well as the Free Exercise Clause was incorporated against the States. In time, twisted reasoning and interpretations led to atrocities such as Lemon.
So, in light of that background, how should be apply the incorporated Establishment Clause, particularly knowing how narrow its intended purpose was.
I support a VERY NARROW reading and application of the Establishment Clause.
No establishing State or Federal churches or favoring one religion over another religion. This should go without saying, but that is the obvious main purpose of the clause.
No direct support to any church or religion.
No policies that would require religious participation, such as prayer in school, but I would permit moments of silence and permit voluntary individual prayer during such period.
I would permit passive religious displays if their purpose is primarily secular, such as the cross in this case.
I would permit traditional legislative prayer, with the provision that minority faiths must have a fair opportunity to offer prayer from time to time.
I would obliterate the so called “Heckler’s veto” that has stifled free speech around this country. (while that is more associated with freedom of speech, it also involves religious expression).
I could go on, but I think I have gotten the gist across. I believe freedom of speech and freedom of religion should be protected to the utmost and to do that, we must constrain interpretation of the Establishment Clause to a very narrow reading. The broad reading of the Establishment Clause, particularly post Lemon, has been very damaging to freedom of religion in this country.
I disagree with you. I don’t think that Lemon has damaged religious freedom at all and that a plethora of the “broad” interpretations of the Establishment Clause were correctly decided.
Of the cases that were correctly decided, it was often because the court essentially ignored the holding of Lemon and narrowed the reading of the Establishment Clause in the case. The Supreme Court has ignored or or partially ignored Lemon on several occasions, they just have not formally reversed it, YET. I believe they will formally reverse Lemon in this case.
I am a non-theist. However, I also believe in the maximum protection of free speech and free exercise of religion. When the interpretation of the Establishment Clause reaches the point that it stifles free exercise of religion, it has gone too far.
That’s untrue, Safiel. None of the Lemon test rulings ever stopped anyone from exercising their freedom of religion. They only ever restricted governmental agents acting in the capacity of a governmental agent and anyone using government as a platform.
Would your interpretation permit school-led Christian prayer wherein no one is punished for not praying?
What are you afraid of? Why not? If there is a Muslim teacher, and she wants to lead her students of Muslim faith in prayer, and it is not part of the academic hours, I am Ok with that too.
You know damn well that the school prayer in the casesc concerning it happens during academic hours. And I call bull on you being okay with Muslim prayer.
No problem at all. No problem with a 30 foot Jim Jones Kool-Aid container. No problem with a 30 foot Heaven’s Gate Hale-Bopp comet. I would probably like anything you and AOC would like.
I know you’re replying to another poster, but… I wouldn’t have a problem if that was erected on private land through private dollars. Then, over the course of a century, the government acquired the land and left it on there.
I don’t think the government should be building specific religious markers. However, the cross has also long been associated with grave markers in our culture, so it can also have a secular meaning as well.
Call what you want. I am for liberty and freedom. The greatest freedom we have is the freedom of choice. To believe or not to believe. I do not believe that that choice should be taken from anyone…even if they make decisions that I may happen to disagree with.
